1.) I think this interpretation is a bit too literal.Originally Posted by Tommy
a.] Irrationality (in this case, Se and Ne) is a direct and unmediated perception of information, and rationality (Te and Fe), mediated judgment. Se and Ne observe the outer world, whereas Fe and Te react to the outer world (people, places, things, events) by applying ethical or logical evaluations/assessments, which tend towards more explicit engagement and interaction with human based systems (e.g., social etiquette, bureaucracy, etc...). Therefore, Se/Ne and Fe/Te, though extraverted, shouldn’t be expected to come with the same environmental ramifications.
b.] Moreover, “group” is used to invoke the collectivist mind set, where the group has its own thoughts and values different from those of the individual members. In this way, objectivity and being objective (truth uninfluenced by personal, subjective feelings and opinions) is the paradigm.
This is what Jung has to say about the extraverted rational:
“The moral laws which govern his action coincide with the corresponding claims of society, i.e. with the generally valid moral viewpoint.”Why are flowers called flowers? Because we have collectively agreed to refer to them that way [within the linguistic system that is English]. A rose is a type of flower. That is a fact [and an aspect of Te involves accumulating objective facts], which is dependent on a degree of consensus concerning the external qualities of a rose and flower and how they interact with each other. Te makes the external world more logical by way of understanding it objectively, creating standardized definitions, methods, plans, policies, rules and procedures, with the expectation that everyone will adhere to them.“The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint.”
It’s interesting that you don’t see Te as a [rather reductionist] form of “group think” and yet you quote other people’s definitions of the IEs. Lol A Ti user would be more inclined to speak from their own creative understanding, rather than rely on the thoughts of others.
But these are connected; Fe social values are the logical extension/off shoot of the ethics of emotions or ethical estimations of observable actions. If an aspect of Fe involves elevating moods in order to create a bond of shared (typically) “good” feeling or communal morale, and one is able to discern what actions make people feel a particular way (because they can detect the ‘emotional excitations’ of other people), doesn’t it make sense that, on a broader scale, Fe valuers might want to instill and perpetuate over arching social values that lend to good feeling and emotional harmony for everyone? For example, “Thank You,” “Good Morning,” “Happy Holidays” are all socially pervasive, widely accepted ways of engendering a positive feeling.
If a strong Fe valuer went into an environment where saying “Happy Holidays” with a broad smile was considered rude and offensive and generated bad feeling, the Fe valuer would pick up on that emotional feedback, and not do that within that space, even if they still believed that saying "Happy Holidays" was a generally good and appropriate way to greet others.
Jung buttresses this point:
"An accommodation to objective data, such as we have described, must, of course, seem a complete adaptation to the extraverted view, since from this standpoint no other criterion exists. But from a higher point of view, it is by no means granted that the standpoint of objectively given, facts is the normal one under all circumstances. Objective conditions may be either temporarily or locally abnormal. An individual who is accommodated to such can certainly conform to the abnormal style of his surroundings, but, in relation to the universally valid laws of life."
Reply With Quote